Alberta fighting division with division

Since the federal election in October 2019, there has been a clear increase in separatist sentiment in Alberta and other parts of western Canada. I recently blocked Wexit ads on Facebook because I was getting sick of them.

Many feel like we're under attack by the federal government and other provinces. Across our country, our health and quality of life are quite dependent on fossil fuels, and a significant chunk of that comes from Alberta. Yet in 2017 Justin Trudeau said, "We can't shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out." Even though he backpedaled on that comment, it gave many Albertans the impression that he doesn't care about our jobs and prosperity. The federal government passed laws that many in the resource industry think will make it harder to get resource projects done. And they created a national carbon tax.

So Albertans get the impression that Trudeau is against us, he has numerous scandals involving questionable ethics and competence, and then much of the rest of the country re-elects him. Yes, his party is reduced to a minority, but the balance of power is held by other parties that want more restrictions on fossil fuels, and the Bloc Quebecois that appears openly hostile to Alberta.

Justin Trudeau says he's been trying to build unity nationwide, but we've become more divided.

But as Albertans, we should not fight division with division.

First of all, let's acknowledge that human-caused climate change is serious and we need to work toward net-zero global carbon emissions in the coming decades. If you read through my Facebook feed, it's no secret that I support major action on this.

When people predict bad things in the future, the worst predictions are rarely right. In this case the worst predictions are human extinction or even the extinction of all life of earth, and I (with my limited understanding of the subject) consider these extremely unlikely. But predictions of 100 million premature deaths this century, even more in coming centuries, and accelerating extinction of other species are not the worst predictions; they represent mainstream science.

If you or someone you love works in the fossil fuel industry, it is certainly hard to support government policies that would eliminate these jobs in the coming decades. I get it. Renewable energy development, retrofitting of buildings, and transportation infrastructure construction will create many jobs, but I understand the fear of forced change. People don't know if change will help them get ahead or leave them behind.

For all of Justin Trudeau's faults, he actually brought in the most pro-Alberta climate policy of all the parties that support a carbon tax. The rebates all go to the province that the money came from; since Alberta has the highest per-capita greenhouse gas emissions and hence the highest costs, we get the biggest rebates. If everyone in Canada simply got the same rebate, that would be another net flow of money out of Alberta. The Liberals are also the only party to support both a carbon tax and a new oil export pipeline so that we can get a better price for our oil while we can still sell it.

As for the economic effects of a carbon tax, I challenge you to find a jurisdiction that has had a carbon tax for several years where the economy has done badly. I'll mention Sweden as a success story--it has the highest carbon tax on earth, and its economy has done just fine in that time.

When we get criticized for pipeline building, oil sands mining, and stuff like that, let's not pretend that cutting the emissions from our oil production or converting our coal power plants to natural gas is enough. Yes, let's talk about the progress we've made, but let's be just as vocal about our commitment to achieving net-zero emissions in the coming decades.

As a province and as individuals, let's:

• Invest in much more renewable energy, grid energy storage systems (pumped storage hydroelectricity is just one option that doesn't need a single new invention), and maybe nuclear power.
• Finish converting our coal power plants to natural gas.
• Invest in carbon capture, both from industrial stacks and from the atmosphere. (Carbon Engineering has a promising technology to convert atmospheric CO2 to hydrocarbon fuels. If it can run on 100% renewable energy, then it would produce carbon-neutral hydrocarbons.)
• Produce oil as cleanly as we can, to sell to the world for as long as they use oil.
• Actively work toward net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 (with a possible exception for industries exporting to countries that haven't achieved net-zero emissions by then).
• Diversify our economy so that when the world won't buy our oil--or anyone else's--we still have a strong economy.
• Support political candidates who show strong integrity and leadership skill, and support the kinds of policies (in many areas, not just climate change) that you think are a good idea. Speak out against hypocrisy, abuse of power, and neglect for our future.
• Don't insult people we disagree with especially if they're motivated by love and compassion; respond intelligently and respectfully. (I'm getting tired of the insults directed at Greta Thunberg on Facebook.)

The coming decades will bring an unprecedented level of change to the world. Much of it can be positive. Do we want to isolate ourselves and become an economic also-ran, or do we want to work with the rest of Canada and the world to meet this challenge head-on?

Robocalls and mass texts

It's election season here in Alberta. So here's a thought: what if robocalls, mass text messages, and similar forms of automated campaigning were banned? Would anyone be disadvantaged from this?

If political candidates have to rely on volunteers, paid staff, and paid advertising to get their message out, then the number of people they can reach is roughly proportional to how well they engage everyday people in the political process, whether as volunteers or donors. If they can write a computer program to mass text or mass call a huge list of randomly generated phone numbers, they really don't need to actively engage the rest of us; they can annoy get their message out to massive amounts of people without a lot of money or help.

So would banning robocalls and mass texts get more people engaged in the political process? And maybe reduce people's cynicism and distrust in the whole political process?

Making a difference in Alberta

For everyone reading this in Alberta, I want to encourage you to get out and vote today. Remember: your vote probably won't make a difference, but when a whole bunch of people do something that doesn't make a difference, it makes a difference.

Sex changes

Several years ago, I volunteered with The Mustard Seed, an organization that helps poor people in inner-city Edmonton in various ways, including serving meals and giving away donated clothing.

One day when I was there during a meal, one of the staff asked me to go to the clothing storage area and find a skirt for a man who had just come in. Yes, you read that right. This man was dressed as a woman, but not very convincingly. It was pretty clear he was a man. I went to the clothing storage and found a skirt and whatever else this person had asked for.

Later, I was watching the entrance with a new volunteer. This volunteer looked over at the cross-dresser and said, "People like that don't even deserve to live."

I was surprised to hear him say something so hateful, yet I wasn't willing to speak up.

I don't think I ever saw that volunteer again. Maybe he made a similar remark to someone on staff and they told him he shouldn't come back. Or maybe he decided on his own that he couldn't handle being in the same room as a transvestite or transgendered person.

I don't know if the man in the skirt was a transvestite (someone who likes dressing like the opposite sex) or transgendered (someone who thinks they should be the opposite sex). But either way, he clearly faced hatred. Now the Alberta government is planning to stop funding sex change surgeries for transgendered Albertans. Based on what I've learned about transgendered people, they feel like they were born the wrong gender, even from a young age. As far as I know, most of them were born with the body parts of a single gender, not both. This seems to be a much deeper feeling than simply not liking the way they look. Feeling this way can lead to severe depression and even suicide.

I don't know how much of the depression comes from the transgendered feeling itself and how much comes from the social stigma. I suspect some of both. So whether you support or oppose government funding for sex change operations, please oppose hatred toward transgendered people. Treat them like normal people. (And if you ever want tips on how not to treat minorities like they're normal, watch any episode of "The Office" where Michael deals with black people or gay people.) I'm sorry for not standing up for that guy at The Mustard Seed, and the next time I encounter hatred like that, I intend to say something.

Meanwhile, an article about this issue also mentioned that they're cutting back funding for youth suicide prevention. So now some teens could die because the government wants to save a few bucks? Does our government really care about our mental health?

Election day

I'm watching the TV coverage of the Alberta election as I'm writing this. So far it looks like the Progressive Conservatives will have a strong majority, but it's not over yet.

Over the last year and a bit, I've been moderately satisfied with Ed Stelmach's leadership. One of my biggest worries about him was that he's too nice and can't make tough decisions or take criticism. But he's been decisive on issues like natural resource royalties and some other areas that Ralph Klein neglected.

Then there's the issue of integrity. He may not be very charismatic, but he seems trustworthy. But I'm concerned about some things, like having his own party appoint the people running the election--not his party's election campaign, but the actual polling stations and things like that. Maybe this was a lapse in judgment, and I doubt it would lead to any significant electoral fraud. As much as I hate "slippery slope" arguments, I have to say that this could be a slippery slope to increased government corruption. Maybe this wasn't Stelmach's idea, but in his position, he has a responsibility to stop this kind of thing. Since he didn't stop it, it shows some weakness in his leadership.

I also think we should slow down this crazy rate of economic growth here, and Stelmach doesn't want to do that. The Liberals, NDP, and Green Party all want to slow the growth. Actually, I've been more impressed with Kevin Taft than any other Liberal leader (provincial or federal) in my voting years. I tend to think the NDP is too left wing and the Wildrose Alliance is too right wing. I'd like to see the Green Party gain some seats, but so far it doesn't look like they will.

So how did I vote? I'm not telling.

An amusing quote from the Green Party

In the Alberta Green Party's platform for this election, they talk about promoting geothermal energy, saying, "If there is on thing Albertans know how to do well; it is drill holes in the ground."

I'd like to see the Green Party get some MLAs elected. I just hope their leadership and ideas are better than their spelling and grammar.

Funniest part of the debate

I watched Thursday's debate between the leaders of Alberta's biggest political parties. I suppose I could comment on what I thought of their policies and leadership abilities, but instead I'll just tell you what I thought was the funniest part of the debate. Maybe I'll comment on policies and leadership another time.

One time when everyone was trying to talk at once, Ed Stelmach interrupted and said, "One at a time. You have had your chance. This is not the Legislative Assembly."

Emissions intensity

Last week I talked about the possibility of a carbon tax to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions. Today I'm talking about another controversial subject in emission reductions: emissions intensity. And once again, I am assuming the majority of climate scientists are correct--human activity is causing climate change. If you disagree with that, feel free to say so, but I am not prepared to debate it.

The Alberta government wants industrial polluters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions intensity (emissions per dollar of product produced) rather than their absolute emissions. This is controversial because it allows growing companies to actually increase their total emissions while the world actually needs reduced total emissions. (Actually, the world needs reduced CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and that's going to take some major reductions in total emissions.)

Assuming most scientists are right, I would agree that we need absolute reductions, but I think requiring each company to reduce its emissions intensity is a good way to divide up the responsibility. If every company needed to do absolute reductions, it would take a lot of the flexibility out of our economy. If a company comes up with a newer, much more efficient way to produce something, expanding their production could actually be good for the environment because their more-polluting competitors could lose market share. Requiring absolute emissions reductions would make this more difficult. It would also make it hard for companies to respond to changing demands from consumers.

Another example: as it gets harder to find conventional sources for oil, we're getting more development of the oil sands and other less conventional oil sources. These sources need more energy, so they pollute more. I hope we can reduce our dependence on oil, but as long as there's so much demand for oil, the oil sands will have to expand. The emissions intensity of oil sands plants will have to decrease, but we can't expect overall emissions from oil production to decrease.

This situation also shows that each of a company's activities should probably be treated separately (for example, oil sands should be considered separately from conventional oil) in evaluating emissions intensity. Also, we don't want companies expanding their low-polluting activities just so they can get away with doing nothing to improve their high-polluting activities.

One question I have: is emissions intensity a good way to divide up reduction targets for countries, provinces/states, and individual people? This would seem to favour the rich over the poor, because the rich can pollute more. Or maybe it would prevent introducing a new barrier to development in poor places. And maybe it is unrealistic to expect absolute emissions reductions in places like Alberta, in the short term. I already mentioned some reasons for oil sands expansion. That's happening because of increased demand and decreased supply of oil from other places. That's not Alberta's fault. Yes, we need to produce the oil as efficiently as we can, but we can't be expected to reduce other places' demand for oil. Or is this favouring a rich province while holding back the poorer ones?

Reminiscing about politicians

The years 1993 to 2003 were special years for Canada and especially for Alberta. No, I'm not saying this because of economic growth or paying down the government's debts. One reason I miss those years is this: we had hilarious political leaders at both the federal and provincial levels. I've seen Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister of Canada from 1993 to 2003) and Ralph Klein (Premier of Alberta from 1992 to 2006) on TV in the last two days, and it's had me reminiscing.

Chrétien was known for trying to strangle a protester, defending himself against an intruder with an Inuit carving, and most of all, for bungling the English language. Hardly a week went by without a gem in the news. Like the time someone asked him about the increased drug traffic across the border and he said, "It's more trade." (He thought they'd asked him about increased truck traffic.) Or the time some protesters got pepper-sprayed and he said, "For me, pepper, I put it on my plate."

Ralph Klein was known for his drinking (which he cut back on after the infamous homeless shelter incident that most Albertans probably remember) and for speaking without thinking. He accused eastern creeps and bums of driving up the crime rate in Calgary. He said dinosaur farts caused the ice age that killed the dinosaurs.

Stephen Harper and Ed Stelmach just aren't that funny.

(In case you're wondering, Jean Chrétien was on TV having lunch with Rick Mercer, and Ralph Klein was on TV giving horse racing advice to Lynda Steele, a local news anchor. If you want to see the Jean Chrétien clip, click here, navigate to Season 5, Episode 7, and click on "Mercer: At Harvey's with Chrétien.")

"I'm telling you, it feels good to get up without a hangover."
--Something Ralph Klein learned in his third term as premier

Oil and friends

Premier Ed Stelmach has finally announced his decision about oil and gas royalty payments, jacking up royalties by about $1.5 billion per year, total. I'm no economist, so it's really hard for me to predict what effect this will have on the oil industry and on job prospects in Alberta. While I don't want to see people lose jobs, it probably wouldn't be bad for Alberta if our economic growth was slower. As it is, we may be the richest province in Canada, but it's an expensive place to live. I've heard before that Alberta has the highest rate of depression in Canada--more evidence that money doesn't buy happiness.

One piece of evidence the premier may have found the right balance: people on both sides are angry.

On Saturday I went to visit two friends who moved to Forestburg, Alberta a while back. They went to my church while they lived in Edmonton. So a few of us from church went to visit them. They have a funny dog named Rolo who was scared of my other friends' baby at first. Actually, the dog was scared of all of us at first, but she got less fearful of most of us. Except Curtis. (If you'd seen how he treated Rolo, you'd understand.)

Our Forestburg friends took us to the school where they work and we played a sport called "pilo-polo" or something like that. Their description went something like this: "It's kind of like floor hockey, but you play with a ball. And there are nets." At this point I was wondering what the difference is. "You hit the ball with these foam bats." Then I was starting to see the difference. And it turned out the ball was larger and softer than typical floor hockey balls. It was a tiring, challenging game, maybe because I'm kind of out of shape, but it was fun and I scored two goals. One of them was even for my team!